Scots indy results thread

[cesare]

From other thread.

And he's previously explained why he didn't adopt the purist position.

 

[fractionMan]

Are you seriously saying that someone who says "it's more complicated than yes or no" doesn't care about the issue?

 

[poului]

The conspiracy theories continue.

"We believe that it is only a matter of time before the fullness of the truth comes out. There can be no doubt that the count was a fraud."

http://thebutterflyrebellion.org/2014/09/23/the-sabotage-of-scotlands-democracy/

Is there any merit in this?

 

[DotCommunist]

no

 

[poului]

no

"Ireland, it can be argued, is yet another tainted source. Not France."

Um....

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The conspiracy theories continue.

"We believe that it is only a matter of time before the fullness of the truth comes out. There can be no doubt that the count was a fraud."

http://thebutterflyrebellion.org/2014/09/23/the-sabotage-of-scotlands-democracy/

Is there any merit in this?

I very, very, very much doubt it.

 

[butchersapron]

Didn't you read them, they said: "There can be no doubt that the count was a fraud." Right - no doubt.

 

[poului]

Some loon linked me to this on social media.

"We know all our evidence is anecdotal but..."

 

[frogwoman]

Knowingly the Westminster administration sought tainted witnesses to witness its crime; almost the perfect crime. Earlier this evening a senior civil servant in the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin made it known to us that this decision was known in advance in Dublin, and that preparation for a Yes vote had been cancelled. According to this source, from whom we have requested documentary evidence, it had been made clear to his department that “Westminster will not, under any circumstances, let go of Scotland.” Open diplomatic opinion in Ireland, a young state with hard experience of an independence struggle with Westminster, is that clandestine moves were made to safeguard Scottish resources for London.

Umm...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

They invited Russian observers and committed the crime in front of the Russian observers because Russian observers are not going to be believed. The perfect crime.

Except that it doesn't work like that. The country in question doesn't get to choose who observes what.

 

[DotCommunist]

it was inevitable that which ever side won there would be bonkers like this. I'm sure saner heads are looking at why they lost and where to go from here etc.


I bet Alex Jones had his piece pre written and just left the winning sides names blank to be filled in on results day

 

[poului]

It's seriously fucking radio, isn't it?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

RT's gone into top gear on this.

The Kremlin propaganda channel RT, meanwhile, speculated that the result might have been rigged and expressed surprise at the "North Korean" levels of turnout.

Afshin Rattansi, the presenter of RT's Going Underground show, said there were "international considerations", such as the UK's nuclear deterrent, which had affected the outcome. He said: "With the vote as close as this, with the mainstream media on one side, with a massive amount of people from Westminster running up to beg Scotland the other way, and certain recounts in certain bits of the poll, which way did the vote go, really?"

He added: "It is normally the sort of turnout you would expect in North Korea. Usually media here would go 'we don't believe it. How can it be nearly 90%?'"

graun

 

[poului]

RT's gone into top gear on this.

So if it's a low turnout, it's suspect and if it's a high turnout, it's suspect. Ffs.

 

[toggle]

Seymour analysis

The most interesting thing about nationalism in this debate is that the most belligerent nationalism of all was simply invisible to some. Unionists could stand in front of a sea of red, white and blue, and decry 'narrow Scottish nationalism', with no apparent sense of irony. They can drop the "two world wars" meme one minute, and deride national chauvinism the next. This, of course, is itself a record of the peculiar power of British nationalism. Whenever an ideology is so pervasive that it one inhabits it, lives in it, such that it is simply taken for granted - when it is, in a word, naturalised - that is when it has achieved the peak of its success. But there's something else. British nationalism is 'global', precisely because it is imperial. To have a British identity is, for many, to have access to the world. This is the sense in which Scottish nationalism is, by contrast, 'narrow'.

this rings completely true with a lot of the stuff i've seen. the refusal of some to accept that their support for the status quo, for maintaining the british nation intact is in fact, a nationalist position. whether they choose to recognise this or not. I see this every time anyone suggests they identify as Cornish, not English. the righteous anger and sense of betrayal - how dare part of our country claim not to be part of our country. a little time to think and this is often rethought into a more considered position - and argued through international socialism, or neo-liberalist economics, but the initial reactions are generally the same.

 

[frogwoman]

http://t.co/Ze1ZvQ5jIS breakdown of voting intentions

 

[littlebabyjesus]

http://t.co/Ze1ZvQ5jIS breakdown of voting intentions

They've been got at.

/RT

 

[littlebabyjesus]

http://t.co/Ze1ZvQ5jIS breakdown of voting intentions

I guess we need to be a little cautious as the number of 'did not respond's is quite high, but that broadly supports the Ashcroft poll. Narrow vote 'no' among youngest voters, then peak 'yes' around 30 years old, drifting off to narrow 'no' again around age 35-40, and decisive no among older voters.

Richer voters - decisive no; poorer voters narrow yes.

Born in Scotland, even split; born outside Scotland decisive no.

Adding that to other stuff showing Labour supporters voting 2:1 no, it's an interesting dynamic - it strikes me there that 'yes' couldn't achieve decisive majorities among the groups most likely to vote 'yes'. There was a tendency for more left-wing, working class voters to vote 'yes', but only a very weak one - plenty voted 'no'. There are strong constituencies for 'no', but not really any strong constituencies for 'yes'.


If I were a 'yes' supporter, I'd be quite concerned by that. It shows they were off by a fair distance. They ended in a dead heat among those born in Scotland, but lost the argument decisively among those born outside Scotland.

 

[DairyQueen]

Born in rUK/outside Scotland need to be split out there. Not as simple as non-Scots voting no. I know the Scots-born Asian community was supportive of yes, a long side a great many minorities. Again, it is likely more to do with a combination of other factors than English say no. Age, wealth might be more important.

 

[weepiper]

Born in rUK/outside Scotland need to be split out there. Not as simple as non-Scots voting no. I know the Scots-born Asian community was supportive of yes, a long side a great many minorities.

Yep. And actually a lot of English people living in Scotland were voting Yes.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Born in rUK/outside Scotland need to be split out there. Not as simple as non-Scots voting no. I know the Scots-born Asian community was supportive of yes, a long side a great many minorities. Again, it is likely more to do with a combination of other factors than English say no. Age, wealth might be more important.

The figures don't support that.

Born outside the UK were marginally less strongly 'no' than born in UK but outside Scotland. But by those figures, it's still a 38-24 split for no of those who responded that they had voted and were born outside the UK.

How their Scottish-born children voted, I don't know. Just judging by those figures, if they are young, urban and not rich, then they will be in line with others of that demographic if they are tending to yes, but not overwhelmingly so. It would be interesting to see whether or not they were in line.

I can't see good figures online. Just one rather small study from before the vote and a lot of wishful thinking from both sides before the vote, both claiming a majority.

I certainly can't find anything persuasive to show that Scots-born Asians were a majority 'yes'. One of the problems with a lot of stuff from before the vote, as far as I can see, is that those intending to vote 'yes', to vote for change, were more likely to call up radio shows, etc, than those intending a quiet 'no'. There was a hell of a lot of confusing noise.

 

[DairyQueen]

Mainly going by media reports leading into the campaign. They will be predominately Scottish though. The figures you provided show a significant difference between those born in rUK (25% yes) and those born outside the UK (41% yes).

 

[MrSki]

 

[butchersapron]

How will that hit him and his party?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Mainly going by media reports leading into the campaign.

Yeah, I found that radio poll. I also found a small study of young Asain voters giving a majority 'no'. Totally unreliable noise, I'm afraid, both of them.

 

[MrSki]

How will that hit him and his party?

Probably not a lot. Maybe it will encourage others to think more about their politics?

 

[DairyQueen]

It will help him. No? Getting attacked from the left in Scotland and right in England?

 

[butchersapron]

Probably not a lot. Maybe it will encourage others to think more about their politics?

Like voting lib-dem in 2010?

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Cameron is laughing his head off that the Libscum are being overtaking by the Nats

 

[DairyQueen]

Lib Dems did get into government on the back of some promises. People probably did think about their vote, just expected much, much more from the Lib Dems. Are they not going to free the weed if they get another chance?